Tag Archives: Debate

Podcasts

Audio and video from the recent Licona vs Carrier debate

3 Comments

Mike Licona just e-mailed me about his re-match with internet infidel Richard Carrier, who takes an extremely skeptical view of the New Testament.

The audio and video are linked here on 4truth.net.

Details:

On February 11, 2010, Michael Licona and Richard Carrier faced each other in debate for a second time. Topic: Did Jesus rise from the dead? The debate occurred at Washburn University in Topeka, Kansas in front of an estimated audience of 750. There are two video segments. The first is the main part of the debate (opening statements and six inquiry periods lasting 10 minutes each). The second is the audience Q & A.

Links:

UPDATE: Brian Auten writes:

The full MP3 (debate and q/a) can be found here. The MP3 links at 4truth are not actual MP3s as of this moment.

This is a cross-examination debate, so it should be very fun to watch/hear.

News

Cowardly Hedy Fry backs away from her challenge to debate pro-lifers

2 Comments

From the Canadian Center for Bioethical Reform.

Excerpt:

Last month, Member of Parliament Dr. Hedy Fry was reported in a CBC article as saying she was ready to debate abortion with anyone. When one of her former patients, international pro-life speaker Stephanie Gray, took her up on her offer, Dr. Fry declined….

Here is the actual voice mail backing out of the debate:

The pro-lifer debater comments:

“It’s disappointing that a member of parliament who has been so vocal in support of abortion won’t publicly defend her views in a forum where they will be challenged,” said Gray, executive director of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR). Gray pointed out that it’s not likely abortion will be debated in the House any time soon given the political hot potato the topic is. Gray continued: “If Dr. Fry is so confident that she’s correct, why not air her views against mine? Those on the side of truth should have nothing to fear. I don’t. I welcome the opportunity to engage her or any abortion advocate in examining the issue.”

Yeah, because the abortion position has nothing to do with reason – it has to do with selfishness. A man and a woman conspire to pursue pleasure and to then kill an innocent child in order to avoid being inconvenienced in their careers or finances. That’s what abortion is. It’s slavery, only worse, because you actually kill the innocent person for money, rather than just making them work.

Children are the natural consequence of having sex. If the man and the woman are BOTH not ready for a baby, then they should not be having sex. A baby has the best chance of surviving and thriving with two married parents who have kept a home for a couple of years. So grown-ups have the responsibility to take care of providing the environment for children who are the natural result of the sexual act. It’s no use complaining about unexpected babies – if you have sex, you need to be ready for a baby. And it’s no use caterwauling about how recycling makes you a good person if you cannot love the helpless innocent people that you create with your own selfish choices.

Imagine you were trimming your hedge and you noticed a baby bird with a broken wing on the ground. You don’t ignore the bird and you certainly don’t kill it. You take it to a vet, you pay to splint the bird’s wing, and you take it home and nurse it back to health. Because it’s small and it’s weak and it needs you and it’s on your property and it’s your responsibility and that’s all there is to it. There isn’t any decision to make once you find it – you just deal with it. Because you have moral character and you don’t care that much about being happy – you care a lot more about being good. You desire for happiness is irrelevant. You want to be good. Whatever it takes.

UPDATE: This story was picked up by Canada’s National Post, the best national newspaper in Canada.

Polemics

William Lane Craig answers a question from our own commenter Martin

2 Comments

Here’s the original comment from Martin.

I thought this was a pretty good objection, and I said so. Well, Martin submitted it as a question to Bill, and Bill replied.

Here is his question to Dr. Craig, which is similar to what he asked before:

I’ve been thinking about the fine tuning argument, and while I like it and think it carries some weight, something about it bothers me. It seems to suffer from “life chauvinism.”

In a poker hand a royal flush has intrinsic value and thus being dealt that hand is highly improbable and quite amazing. But that’s because the rules of the game define a royal flush as having value before the hand is dealt.

What is the justification for asserting that life is the royal flush?

Life could be defined as an “amazing and improbable phenomenon” X1. Singing gas could be defined as “amazing and improbable phenomenon” X2. Rainbow planets with rings of fire could be X3. And so on.

Each phenomena is equally improbable and can only come about by a certain setting of the universal constants. Why assert that X1 has intrinsic value? Couldn’t X2 “complain” that we are being phenomenonists by claiming that X1 is best?

It just seems to me that the rules about royal flushes are being made up only after the hand has been dealt.

Martin

And you can read Dr. Craig’s reply here. He starts by saying this “This is a very good question, Martin, about which I’d like to think more. But here are some preliminary reflections.”

I like this response because I actually had to study Bayes Theorem for my machine learning classes in grad school. So this was good because I actually get to use computer science for something useful for a change. (By the way, my New Zealand readers, I used the Weka machine learning software library).

Wow! We have the smartest commenters. Just last week that woman who I like was asking me about divine aseity. Like I know what to say about that. Well, I did say something to her that seemed to make sense to her, but she still has more questions. That’s Bill’s current area of research, you know.

On Guard

By the way, I know some of you have no idea who Bill Craig is, and I am afraid I will have to smite you with my foam bat for this grave infraction. But there is a way out. You can read chapter 1 of Bill Craig’s new book “On Guard” right here on his web site. It’s an introduction to apologetics from the top Christian apologist of all time. And if you like it, you can order it and read the whole thing. It’s dirt cheap on Amazon.com.